Bom. HC: Strong Message Needs to be Sent to ED to Act Within Parameters of Law  ||  DDA Admits Contempt by Allowing Felling of Trees to Broaden Road  ||  SC Proposes Appointment of Ad-Hoc Judges Due to High Pendency of Criminal Cases  ||  Madras HC Restores Suit by Testbook against Google Over Billing Policy  ||  Gujarat High Court, 4% Reservation, Persons With Disabilities  ||  Guj. HC Issues Notice on Plea Seeing Implementation of 4% Reservation in Promotions for PwDs  ||  SC: Prices under MoU for Inter-Supply of Petroleum Products Don’t Constitute ‘Transaction Value’  ||  SC Asks HC Judges to Record Annual Confidential Reports of Judicial Officers Promptly  ||  Supreme Court Directs States & HCs to Frame Rules to Increase Posts of District Judge  ||  SC: Asking Woman to Not Live if She Can’t Live Without Marrying Her Lover Isn’t Abetment to Suicide    

Meera Santosh Pal And Ors. V. Union Of India And Ors. - (Supreme Court) (16 Jan 2017)

24-week pregnancy allowed to be terminated on ground of danger to life and certain inability of fetus to survive extra uterine life

MANU/SC/0050/2017

Law of Medicine

Petitioner No.1 approached this Court under Article 32 of Constitution of India seeking directions to Respondents to allow her to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. She apprehended danger to her life, having discovered that her fetus was diagnosed with Anencephaly, a defect that leaves foetal skull bones unformed and is both untreatable and certain to cause the infant’s death during or shortly after birth. This condition is also known to endanger the mother’s life. Crucial consideration in present case is whether the right to bodily integrity calls for a permission to allow her to terminate her pregnancy.

Report of Medical Board clearly warrants the inference that, continuance of pregnancy involves risk to the life of pregnant woman and a possible grave injury to her physical or mental health as required by Section 3(2)(i) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Though, pregnancy is into 24th week, having regard to danger to the life and certain inability of fetus to survive extra uterine life, Supreme Court considered it appropriate to permit Petitioner to terminate the pregnancy. Overriding consideration is that she has a right to take all such steps as necessary to preserve her own life against the avoidable danger to it. In circumstances, given the danger to her life, there is no doubt that she has a right to protect and preserve her life and particularly since she has made an informed choice. Exercise of her right seems to be within limits of reproductive autonomy.

In Interests of justice, Supreme Court permitted Petitioner no.1 to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy under provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Termination of pregnancy of petitioner no.1 will be performed by Doctors of the hospital where she has undergone medical check-up. Further, termination of her pregnancy would be supervised by the above stated Medical Board who shall maintain complete record of procedure which is to be performed on Petitioner No.1 for termination of her pregnancy. With aforesaid directions, Apex Court allowed writ petition in terms of prayer seeking direction to Respondents to allow petitioner no.1 to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy.

Relevant : Section 3 (2)(i) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

Tags : PREGNANCY   TERMINATION   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved